<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2008 (9) TMI 369 - CESTAT,  AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35441</link>
    <description>Customs exemption under a notification was held unavailable only where the prescribed recommendation and certification requirements were not met. A countersigned recommendation certificate was treated as sufficient compliance because the authorised officer had examined and endorsed the request, and the bill of entry description substantially matched the recommendation letter. Exact reproduction of every machinery specification was not required where the goods corresponded in substance and no misuse of the exemption or unauthorised use of the goods was shown. On that basis, the technical objection was rejected and the differential duty demand was found unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=74028" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (9) TMI 369 - CESTAT,  AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35441</link>
      <description>Customs exemption under a notification was held unavailable only where the prescribed recommendation and certification requirements were not met. A countersigned recommendation certificate was treated as sufficient compliance because the authorised officer had examined and endorsed the request, and the bill of entry description substantially matched the recommendation letter. Exact reproduction of every machinery specification was not required where the goods corresponded in substance and no misuse of the exemption or unauthorised use of the goods was shown. On that basis, the technical objection was rejected and the differential duty demand was found unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35441</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>